Abstract
In order to address ageism and potentially reduce its occurrence, it is essential to identify appropriate ways to research it. Ageism should be examined at the societal level and the individual level. It should be examined both explicitly and implicitly. Moreover, ageism is manifested towards others and towards one-self, thus both levels should be examined. Because ageism is manifested in the ways we think, feel and act towards age and ageing, all three domains should be assessed. Ageism has many theoretical grounds, which also should be incorporated when examining the phenomenon. This section presents both theoretical arguments and practical tools and best practices to facilitate research in the field of ageism.
As international researchers, Wilińska, de Hontheim, and Anbäcken give a reflexive personal account of conducting research on ageism in different countries and cultures. They argue that being physically away from your own culture is an opportunity to re-examine common assumptions about age and ageing and develop a more critical understanding of these issues in light of their varied manifestations in different cultures. To some degree, this chapter corresponds with Snellman’s chapter (2018; chapter 25), as it indicates ways to broaden normative understandings of ageism through exposure to views and perspectives that do not represent the majority view in one’s own culture
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Research is critical to assess the prevalence, origins, and consequences of ageism as well as the potential effectiveness of various interventions to fight ageism. A major challenge associated with the assessment of ageism is the fact that being seen as ageist is generally considered to be negative. Most people do not wish to be seen as ageist (Cherry et al. 2015) and so will respond to questions about ageism with caution. Moreover, ageism is highly prevalent and often unnoticed, because it is so ingrained in our lives (Perdue and Gurtman 1990). This is why implicit measures of ageism are recommended to supplement explicit measures (Shiovitz-Ezra et al. 2016).
Another challenge associated with the assessment of ageism concerns its subjective nature (Ayalon 2016; Voss et al. 2017). In order to acknowledge an event as ageist, one has to notice the event, interpret it as ageist, and then cite ageism as the cause of the event. Any of these three processes can impact one’s willingness to acknowledge ageism. The social context plays an important role, as society clearly defines events as ageist or non-ageist based on current norms and expectations. For instance, whereas asking a job applicant his or her age is the norm in some countries, in other countries asking such a question is not considered acceptable. Hence, the subjective nature of ageism should be acknowledged (Ayalon 2016; Kornadt et al. 2015).
In the first chapter of this section (2018; Chap. 25), Snellman argues that most research on ageism to date has focused on empirical data. Less attention has been paid to aspects such as the normative value applied to ageism and theoretical or interpretive considerations. Snellman argues that the research training of the investigators, rather than the research questions, often guides the selection of the approach. He further suggests that more attention to the selection of a particular research approach would be beneficial and enriching for research in general and for research in the field of ageism in particular.
As international researchers, Wilińska, de Hontheim, and Anbäcken (2018; Chap. 26) give a reflexive personal account of conducting research on ageism in different countries and cultures. They argue that being physically away from your own culture is an opportunity to re-examine common assumptions about age and ageing and develop a more critical understanding of these issues in light of their varied manifestations in different cultures. To some degree, this chapter corresponds with Snellman’s chapter (2018; Chap. 25), as it indicates ways to broaden normative understandings of ageism through exposure to views and perspectives that do not represent the majority view in one’s own culture.
The chapter by Swift et al. (2018; Chap. 27) is an empirical account of ageism in Europe as assessed via the European Social Survey (ESS). The chapter highlights the ESS data as a means to understand ageism. It draws from social psychology theories to demonstrate the contribution of the findings to theory and empirical knowledge. In addition, the authors discuss the importance of multi-level analysis to account for the individual and country levels simultaneously. Given the fact that ageism has both micro- and macro-level origins and manifestations, the ESS provides a unique opportunity to enhance understanding of the intersections between the two levels.
Buttigieg, Ilinca, Sao Jose, and Taghizadeh Larsson (2018; Chap. 29) present a comprehensive overview of how ageism is defined and measured in health and long-term care. Like Snellman, these authors call for a division between empirical research and theoretical research, as most research in the field of health and long-term care is empirical and atheoretical in nature. The authors further call for the use of mixed research methods and perspectives in order to provide a more complete account of ageism in health and long-term care.
Abuladze and Perek-Bialas (2018; Chap. 28) similarly encourage the use of publicly available datasets to measure ageism. Their chapter focuses on the use of measures to assess ageism in the workforce. They use an empiricist approach (as defined by Snellman in this section) to classify measures according to five possible aspects of ageism in the labour market: recruitment/retention, performance, training, interaction with older colleagues, and structural ageism. This chapter, as well as the chapter by Swift et al. (2018; Chap. 27), provides an excellent resource for readers who wish to become familiar with the use of publicly available datasets.
Also in this section, Mendonça, Marques, and Abrams (2018; Chap. 30) outline the results of a review of measures to assess ageism in children. Research has consistently shown that ageism is common among young children and youth and not only among older adults. This supports claims about the automaticity of age categorization (Perdue and Gurtman 1990) and potentially about the evolutionary nature of ageism (Burnstein et al. 1994). Nevertheless, children have different language and test-taking skills that may require somewhat different measures. The authors suggest a classification of measures according to the tripartite model of attitudes (behavioural, cognitive, emotional) and their placement along a continuum of explicit versus implicit measures.
The last chapter in this section is by Phelan (2018; Chap. 31), who uses discourse analysis to demonstrate how ageism is constructed and deconstructed in everyday life. The chapter demonstrates how individuals can position and construct older people in an ageist or non-ageist framework. Using Snellman’s definitions, this chapter takes an interpretive approach, as it examines ageism from a more philosophical/theoretical stand.
These chapters provide potentially useful tools to assess ageism. The chapters by Snellman (2018; Chap. 25), Wilińska et al. (2018; Chap. 26), and Phelan (2018; Chap. 31) are more theoretical in nature. They suggest new ways to think about the phenomenon of ageism, which could potentially affect the ways we study it. The chapters by Swift et al. (2018; Chap. 27), Buttigieg et al. (2018; Chap. 29), Abuladze and Perek-Bialas (2018; Chap. 28), and Mendonça et al. (2018; Chap. 30), on the other hand, provide practical tools for the assessment of ageism in various settings (general society, health and long-term care, and the labour force) and among different target populations (older adults, professionals, adult children, family members, and young children). Swift et al. (2018), Abuladze and Perek-Bialas (2018), and Mendonça et al. (2018) take into account cross-cultural and national considerations. This is particularly important given the fact that ageism is a social phenomenon that does not only occur at the individual level, but rather is affected by socio-cultural aspects (Cuddy et al. 2005; Vauclair et al. 2016).
Although it is not specifically focused on in the chapters of this section, an additional aspect of ageism research is the assessment of ageism at the macro-level (Ayalon and Rothermund 2017). There are multiple macro-level indicators of inequality, such as the Gini coefficient and the coefficient of variation (Allison 1978). With regard to specific characteristics, there are measures of gender inequality such as the Gender Inequality Index and the Gender-Related Development Index (Dijkstra and Hanmer 2000; Gaye et al. 2010) that could potentially be applied to ageism. Consistently, the Active Ageing Index and the Age Watch Index both represent attempts to assess the conditions of older adults in society (AgeWatch 2015; Zaidi et al. 2013). Although informative, these studies evaluate the absolute status of older adults in society and do not provide a comparative analysis of the status of old versus young people in society, as was recently proposed by Ayalon and Rothermund (2017). Nonetheless, these studies indicate a macro-level direction, which is much needed given the manifestation of ageism at the individual level as well as at the social/structural/institutional level.
There has been great progress in researching ageism and there are multiple possibilities for future research. Research should take into account not only ageism at the individual level but also at societal and institutional levels, as ageism often co-occurs at both levels. The availability of public datasets on ageism provides a substantial resource for researchers wishing to explore the topic and develop cross-national comparisons. The limited theoretical grounding of a substantial portion of the research on ageism should be seen as an opportunity for researchers, who could potentially contribute to an emerging and growing field not only through the production of empirical data, but also through the construction and development of theoretical understandings of the phenomenon of ageism.
References
Abuladze, L., & Perek-Białas, J. (2018). Measures of ageism in the labour market in international social studies. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (pp. 459–489). Berlin: Springer.
AgeWatch, G. (2015). Global AgeWatch Index 2013: Help Age International. www.helpage.org/global-agewatch
Allison, P. D. (1978). Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, 43(6), 865–880.
Ayalon, L. (2016). Perceived age discrimination: A precipitator or a consequence of depressive symptoms? The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, gbw101. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw101.
Ayalon, L., & Rothermund, K. (2017). Examining the utility of national indicators of relative age disadvantage in Europe. European Journal of Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-017-0435-2.
Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 773.
Buttigieg, S., Ilinca, S., Jose, M. S., & Larsson, A. T. (2018). Researching ageism in health-care and long term care. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (pp. 491–513). Berlin: Springer.
Cherry, K. E., Allen, P. D., Denver, J. Y., & Holland, K. R. (2015). Contributions of social desirability to self-reported ageism. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 34(6), 712–733.
Cuddy, A. J., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 267–285.
Dijkstra, A. G., & Hanmer, L. C. (2000). Measuring socio-economic gender inequality: Toward an alternative to the UNDP gender-related development index. Feminist Economics, 6(2), 41–75.
Gaye, A., Klugman, J., Kovacevic, M., Twigg, S., & Zambrano, E. (2010). Measuring key disparities in human development: The gender inequality index. Human Development Research Paper, 46, 41.
Kornadt, A. E., Voss, P., & Rothermund, K. (2015). Age stereotypes and self-views revisited: Patterns of internalization and projection processes across the life span. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(4), 582–592.
Mendonça, J., Marques, S., & Abrams, D. (2018). Children’s attitudes toward older people: Current and future directions. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (pp. 515–546). Berlin: Springer.
Perdue, C. W., & Gurtman, M. B. (1990). Evidence for the automaticity of ageism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(3), 199–216.
Phelan, A. (2018). Researching ageism through discourse. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (pp. 547–562). Berlin: Springer.
Snellman, F. (2018). Normative, empiricist, and interpretive considerations in the ageism research process. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (pp. 407–422). Berlin: Springer.
Swift, H., Abrams, D., Marques, S., Vauclair, C. M., Bratt, C & Lima, M. L. (2018). Agisem in the European region: Finding from the European social survey. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (pp. 439–457). Berlin: Springer.
Shiovitz-Ezra, S., Ayalon, L., Brodsky, J., & Doron, I. I. (2016). Measuring ageism based on knowledge, attitudes and behavior: Findings from an Israeli pilot study. Ageing International, 41(3), 298–310.
Vauclair, C.-M., Marques, S., Lima, M. L., Abrams, D., Swift, H., & Bratt, C. (2016). How does income inequality get under the skin? The mediating role of perceived age discrimination in the inequality-health nexus for older and younger people. Available online: http://www.iaccp.org/sites/default/files/reims_pdf/U2SbP2/Vauclair.pdf
Voss, P., Kornadt, A. E., & Rothermund, K. (2017). Getting what you expect? Future self-views predict the valence of life events. Developmental Psychology, 53(3), 567.
Wilińska, M., de Hontheim, A., & Anbäcken, E. M. (2018). Ageism in a cross-cultural perspective: Reflections from the research field. In L. Ayalon & C. Tesch-Römer (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on ageism: Vol. 19. International perspectives on aging (pp. 423–438). Berlin: Springer.
Zaidi, A., Gasior, K., Hofmarcher, M. M., Lelkes, O., Marin, B., Rodrigues, R., et al. (2013). Active ageing index 2012 concept, methodology and final results. Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
<SimplePara><Emphasis Type="Bold">Open Access</Emphasis> This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.</SimplePara> <SimplePara>The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.</SimplePara>
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ayalon, L., Tesch-Römer, C. (2018). Introduction to the Section: Researching Ageism. In: Ayalon, L., Tesch-Römer, C. (eds) Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. International Perspectives on Aging, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73819-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73820-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)